High Court Finds Tommy Robinson guilty of contempt of court over Facebook broadcast

a reply to: bartconnolly

Don't know where you get those claims and fine figures from but they're untrue First of all the law came in in 1981:

'Man jailed for two months for taking photograph inside court'
www.independent.co.uk...

Man jailed for filming trial and livestreaming on facebook'
www.mirror.co.uk...

Man jailed for filming Manchester court hearing
The 21-year-old, of Hunwick Close, Middlesbrough, admitted contempt of court and was jailed for three months.

A brief handful, all jailed on first offence which is a harsher punishment than Tommy receiving a suspended sentence for the same offence.

As for fines, see these - 'strict liability rule' is a very expensive mistake to make.

'The Daily Mirror has been fined £50,000 and the Sun £18,000 for contempt of court for articles published about a suspect arrested on suspicion of murdering Joanna Yeates.'

'Daily Mail and Sun online fined £15,000 each for publishing photograph of defendant that risked prejudicing trial '

www.gov.uk...

'Sunday Mirror fined £75,000 for contempt of court '

www.theguardian.com...

'Scottish Daily Record fined £80,000 for contempt over two stories including one showing 'dramatic' arrest pic with 'GOT HIM' caption'

www.pressgazette.co.uk...


It's also untrue that no reporting restrictions were in place. As was outlined in the original pre-trial, reporting restrictions there were a series of linked trials taking place where photos and the identities of those involved. This wasn't the final trial in the linked series, the next trial started three months later. The reporting ban which every newspaper followed when covering the case was still in place.

a reply to: paraphi

Yes, I know. That was kind of my point.

I am not a barrister and am not incognito, I have made no secret on here about being a lawyer, although criminal law is not my thing and I am no expert in it.

a reply to: bastion

But filming inside a courtroom is much different than filming outside the courthouse entirely, isn’t it?

a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

Why? He was filming the Defendants.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

Why? He was filming the Defendants.

Because It was unclear what conduct was said to comprise a breach of that order and the appellant was sentenced on the basis of conduct which fell outside the scope of that order.

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick
a reply to: bastion

But filming inside a courtroom is much different than filming outside the courthouse entirely, isn’t it?

Tommy's first offence was filming inside court which he received a suspended sentence for while those guys went straight to the clink.
His second offence was contempt for breaking reporting restrictions by broadcasting the identities of the defendants.

The reporting restrictions and dates of the subsequent trials had been available to journalists at pre-trial (where the media get a chance to appeal against any reporting restrictions put in place), the onus is on the reporter to know and comply with such restrictions.

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: BuckyWunderlick
a reply to: bastion

But filming inside a courtroom is much different than filming outside the courthouse entirely, isn’t it?

Tommy's first offence was filming inside court which he received a suspended sentence for while those guys went straight to the clink.
His second offence was contempt for breaking reporting restrictions by broadcasting the identities of the defendants.

The reporting restrictions and dates of the subsequent trials had been available to journalists at pre-trial (where the media get a chance to appeal against any reporting restrictions put in place), the onus is on the reporter to know and comply with such restrictions.

He never filmed in a courtroom during a trial, though, did he? Unlike the other fellows who were arrested?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: paraphi

Yes, I know. That was kind of my point.

I am not a barrister and am not incognito, I have made no secret on here about being a lawyer, although criminal law is not my thing and I am no expert in it.

I think Paraphi was referencing some of the experts who have established Robinson's innocence based on 5 minutes on Wikipedia and watching a YouTube video by Robinson himself.

originally posted by: Grambler
When paraphi said none of them broke the law

That was incorrect

I think you are getting confused with the way rules are applied, so as to avoid the law being a blunt instrument. In this case you have a person who intentionally and with knowledge broke the law, having been asked to desist and under a suspended sentence for a similar infraction. People who through ignorance, or without impact break certain rules, or the law, are often just asked to "move on".

In world where laws are binary, the prisons would be full.

Attempting to defend what Robinson did widening discussion is diversionary as Robinson's offences were continuous and clearly contemptuous.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
I think Paraphi was referencing some of the experts who have established Robinson's innocence based on 5 minutes on Wikipedia and watching a YouTube video by Robinson himself.

Yes Thanks for clarifying what I meant. Everyone's an armchair lawyer when in the possession of someone else's interpretation of the law, complete fabrications and utter fantasy.

a reply to: paraphi

So after several pages we finally come to the answer

Yes the courts selectively apply the law

Yep that’s what my claim was

Now when the ag says societies posts can be contempt and it’s someday used against people who are commenting on cases of government corruption, don’t say you weren’t warned

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: paraphi

So after several pages we finally come to the answer

Yes the courts selectively apply the law

Yep that’s what my claim was

Now when the ag says societies posts can be contempt and it’s someday used against people who are commenting on cases of government corruption, don’t say you weren’t warned

This was covered pages back. Where you are wrong is believing it was selectively applied because of who Robinson is rather than the specifics of what he did.

originally posted by: Grambler
So after several pages we finally come to the answer

Yes the courts selectively apply the law

Within context. In the conext of the Robinson case the law has not been selectively applied. In fact, in dealing with Robinson the case law has evolved.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: bartconnolly


The legal system over here is a lot different to the US system. Mr Brandt would be a bit of a fish out of water over here. The SY-L case turned not so much on the facts as on pretty dry points of law and with all due respect to yourself his legal team probably knew a bit more about the relevant law than your good self. You might call that arguing from authority, I call it a self evident fact.

Do you think his legal team were rubbish?

Who said I am in the US? The point is someone doesnt have to be a qualified lawyer to know the law or argue based on it. But you missed that point. I don't think the legal team was rubbish I think the deck was loaded from the start and the prosecution is clearly politically motivated and this will eventually become apparent. As it did in the Dreyfus case and the Birmingham Six Guildford four and McGuire Seven.
It isn't a case of what I might call it. Look up "Argument from Authority" in any list of logical fallacies.
Your tendency to be a lacky for Authoritarian structures does you no good with respect to defending the points you raise.

a reply to: BuckyWunderlick

That would depend on who and what they were filming.

But Tommy had already been told by a Judge not to produce a repeat performance.

And he choose to do so anyway.

Hence his predicament.

As to filming inside a courtroom, they make your turn off your phone before entering the courtroom.

And if you are silly enough to forget, they don't look on that too kindly nether. You would be removed from the court and possibly find yourself up on a similar contempt of court charge.

a reply to: bartconnolly

Who said I am in the US?

Not me. But Eric Brandt is?

It isn't a case of what I might call it. Look up "Argument from Authority" in any list of logical fallacies.

I don't have to look it up, and it does not apply to what I have said.

Your tendency to be a lacky for Authoritarian structures does you no good with respect to defending the points you raise.

Yes, I am indeed a soulless minion of orthodoxy. Sorry.

a reply to: Grambler

You mean after several pages you have still not bothered to read the CPS Guide that I posted for you.

a reply to: andy06shake

Yes - he is pretty much the author of his own misfortune.

Jailed for 9 months, apparently:

www.bbc.co.uk...

I predict outrage.

a reply to: oldcarpy

So Robinson's original sentence, less the time already served, has be reinstated.

Putting Robinson's politics to one side, as this is not a trial of his politics, I think this is the right course of action. It's simply unacceptable for anyone to attempt to wreck a criminal trial. Especially important when the substance of the trial is so serious.

Those people who think that justice is not served need to consider the impact of the trial being collapsed. The impact to the victims, not least to the cost of having to start a re-trial. Justice delayed by a collapsed trial, is justice denied.

Robinson should be pleased the trial ran its course and the defendants all got long prison sentences. Surely that’s what he wanted?